Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic TV (Pakistan)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Catholic TV (Pakistan)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lines like The introduction of Catholic TV will be for the Church in Pakistan, a great opportunity for evangelisation through the media and Father Morris Jalal visits families and attends church functions in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lahore and carries a video camera to document the community's life for the first Catholic TV channel in Pakistan clearly shows how much notable this channel is and how much WP:COI with which this and many others were written. This from Express Tribune says they are banned organization. Clearly fails WP:BCAST when they are not recognized by PEMRA, Pakistan's FCC. Störm  (talk)  09:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep plenty of coverage of the channel when it was launched and when it was banned by the government of Pakistan along with other Christian broadcasts. The channel is now relegated to videos on a website. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No topic can notable due to some event. We have articles about those channels which are recognized by their country's agency which this channel is not. Fails WP:NBCAST. Störm   (talk)  12:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of our articles are because of events: played professionally, elected, first at something. This subject also passes the general notability guideline with substantial coverage including multiple events: launch, banning, continuing as internet programming. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Catholic publications most certainly count towards notability for Catholic entities: we simply require intellectual independence, and we have that here. Additionally, I find it very unlikely that a cable TV station in a country that broadcasts to a major international religious group would ever be not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears notable as a Christian-oriented channel, see eg.   Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd suggest emending the article. 'PEMRA has banned the channel' does not mean it isn't notable.  samee  talk 16:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Overly promotional article, lacking encyclopedia tone. Beyond this, not everything connected with Catholicism is notable. The channel is just one Catholic priest going about his work and recording it. This is not the stuff that a notable anything is made of.
 * This is a community access channel that put Catholic in its name, and has managed to bamboozle editors here into thinking this makes it significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – There is more than enough coverage in the article, so a rather poor nomination. Also, I agree with TonyBallioni that I find it very unlikely that a cable TV station in a country that broadcasts to a major international religious group would ever be not notable. In regards to the WP:BCAST argument, that just makes it slanted one way or another and anyway that guideline is inferior to the general notability guideline, which this article passes. You don't need to pass both. The WP:PROMO argument doesn't work either as it isn't that promotional anyway and that is an editorial problem. Also, WP:ARTN states that Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.